The chapter presents the early years and the subsequent developments of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), starting from the School of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Strong Programme advanced ...
More

The chapter presents the early years and the subsequent developments of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), starting from the School of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Strong Programme advanced by David Bloor, introducing its four tenets: symmetry, impartiality, causality, and reflexivity. After presenting the main works done in Laboratory Studies, it extensively presents the Bath School and its focus on scientific controversies and tacit knowledge. In particular, it discusses in depth Harry Collins’ concept of “experimenter’s regress” and Trevor Pinch’s “externality of observation”, presenting the empirical work these concepts are based on. The chapter then clarifies the specific form of relativism (methodological relativism) adopted by the Bath School, pointing out its differences from epistemological relativism, and finally discusses the issue of reflexivity as addressed with SSK.Less

The Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Simone TosoniTrevor Pinch

Published in print: 2016-11-11

The chapter presents the early years and the subsequent developments of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), starting from the School of Edinburgh and the Edinburgh Strong Programme advanced by David Bloor, introducing its four tenets: symmetry, impartiality, causality, and reflexivity. After presenting the main works done in Laboratory Studies, it extensively presents the Bath School and its focus on scientific controversies and tacit knowledge. In particular, it discusses in depth Harry Collins’ concept of “experimenter’s regress” and Trevor Pinch’s “externality of observation”, presenting the empirical work these concepts are based on. The chapter then clarifies the specific form of relativism (methodological relativism) adopted by the Bath School, pointing out its differences from epistemological relativism, and finally discusses the issue of reflexivity as addressed with SSK.

In the late 19th and early 20th century the effort to determine when humans first came to North America defined the emerging discipline of American archaeology. It did so not just because some of the ...
More

In the late 19th and early 20th century the effort to determine when humans first came to North America defined the emerging discipline of American archaeology. It did so not just because some of the best and brightest of several generations of archaeologists, glacial geologists, physical anthropologists and vertebrate paleontologists were attracted to it, though they were. Nor because they thought this was a significant problem, though they did. Rather, this problem loomed so large because it cut so deep into American archaeology's conceptual core, forcing the nascent field to confront haziness in its theories, methods and evidence, all while past time and everything that flowed from it vital to understanding the prehistory of North America was held hostage. This book explores the more than four decades of often bitter controversy surrounding that effort, and its resolution. It provides a richly-detailed narrative of the controversy using extensive published and previously untapped archival materials. These make it possible to explore how and why this controversy emerged and why it stubbornly resisted resolution for decades, and reveal the broader currents that fueled this controversy: among them, the fracturing of the American scientific community in its efforts to establish a more professional class, deep institutional rivalries, and intra- and inter-disciplinary distrust. Ultimately, the straightforward question being asked was answered once critical conceptual and factual gaps were closed. The resolution of the controversy in the fall of 1927 not only ended decades of ambiguity and acrimony, it forever changed the discipline of American archaeology.Less

The Great Paleolithic War : How Science Forged an Understanding of America's Ice Age Past

David J. Meltzer

Published in print: 2015-11-03

In the late 19th and early 20th century the effort to determine when humans first came to North America defined the emerging discipline of American archaeology. It did so not just because some of the best and brightest of several generations of archaeologists, glacial geologists, physical anthropologists and vertebrate paleontologists were attracted to it, though they were. Nor because they thought this was a significant problem, though they did. Rather, this problem loomed so large because it cut so deep into American archaeology's conceptual core, forcing the nascent field to confront haziness in its theories, methods and evidence, all while past time and everything that flowed from it vital to understanding the prehistory of North America was held hostage. This book explores the more than four decades of often bitter controversy surrounding that effort, and its resolution. It provides a richly-detailed narrative of the controversy using extensive published and previously untapped archival materials. These make it possible to explore how and why this controversy emerged and why it stubbornly resisted resolution for decades, and reveal the broader currents that fueled this controversy: among them, the fracturing of the American scientific community in its efforts to establish a more professional class, deep institutional rivalries, and intra- and inter-disciplinary distrust. Ultimately, the straightforward question being asked was answered once critical conceptual and factual gaps were closed. The resolution of the controversy in the fall of 1927 not only ended decades of ambiguity and acrimony, it forever changed the discipline of American archaeology.

The publication of Galvani’s memoir in 1791started a lively debate all over Europe and in the last decade of the eighteenth century animal electricity became the most important scientific topic being ...
More

The publication of Galvani’s memoir in 1791started a lively debate all over Europe and in the last decade of the eighteenth century animal electricity became the most important scientific topic being debated by the medical and scientific community, along with the new chemistry proposed by Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. A particular interest in Galvani’s experiments was taken by Alessandro Volta, physicist in Pavia and an expert in electrical studies. This chapter focuses on the early stage of the controversy between Galvani and Volta from new perspectives, which allow to get a better understanding of the scientific issues implied in the arguments of the two Italian scientists, and also to correct a few historiographical errors that have been made in the interpretation of both Galvani’s and Volta’s scientific workLess

The Controversy Between Galvani and Volta Over Animal Electricity : The First Stage

Marco PiccolinoMarco BresadolaNicholas Wade

Published in print: 2013-11-01

The publication of Galvani’s memoir in 1791started a lively debate all over Europe and in the last decade of the eighteenth century animal electricity became the most important scientific topic being debated by the medical and scientific community, along with the new chemistry proposed by Antoine Laurent Lavoisier. A particular interest in Galvani’s experiments was taken by Alessandro Volta, physicist in Pavia and an expert in electrical studies. This chapter focuses on the early stage of the controversy between Galvani and Volta from new perspectives, which allow to get a better understanding of the scientific issues implied in the arguments of the two Italian scientists, and also to correct a few historiographical errors that have been made in the interpretation of both Galvani’s and Volta’s scientific work

Contested Knowledge argues that the structural coupling between science and media in the context of risk politics has led to the creation of a ‘scientific public sphere’ in the state of Kerala, ...
More

Contested Knowledge argues that the structural coupling between science and media in the context of risk politics has led to the creation of a ‘scientific public sphere’ in the state of Kerala, India, and regional newspapers have become the most prominent site of public deliberation over science since the late 1990s. This new form of public engagement with science radically differed from its earlier form nurtured by the Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP), the largest people’s science movement in India. The book discusses this shift and the resultant transformations of the ‘scientific-citizen public’ of Kerala by examining three public controversies over science deliberated in the regional dailies in the early 2000s. Public deliberations during the controversies over clinical trials in the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram, a series of micro-earthquakes and well collapses, and the strange phenomenon of coloured rain are analysed to understand how risks were perceived, knowledge claims were contested, disciplinary rigidities were dismantled and trust in science and the credibility of scientific institutions were re-negotiated. The book thus explores how the public contestation of knowledge staged by the mass media contributes to deepening democracy by re-instilling politics into science. Democratization of science under the agency of the scientific-citizen publics, the book suggests, is nonetheless limited as it fails to account for alternative forms of engagement offered by multiple publics. The book contends that the theory of deliberative democracy is inadequate to capture the multiplicity of public engagement with science.Less

Contested Knowledge : Science, Media, and Democracy in Kerala

Shiju Sam Varughese

Published in print: 2017-02-23

Contested Knowledge argues that the structural coupling between science and media in the context of risk politics has led to the creation of a ‘scientific public sphere’ in the state of Kerala, India, and regional newspapers have become the most prominent site of public deliberation over science since the late 1990s. This new form of public engagement with science radically differed from its earlier form nurtured by the Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad (KSSP), the largest people’s science movement in India. The book discusses this shift and the resultant transformations of the ‘scientific-citizen public’ of Kerala by examining three public controversies over science deliberated in the regional dailies in the early 2000s. Public deliberations during the controversies over clinical trials in the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram, a series of micro-earthquakes and well collapses, and the strange phenomenon of coloured rain are analysed to understand how risks were perceived, knowledge claims were contested, disciplinary rigidities were dismantled and trust in science and the credibility of scientific institutions were re-negotiated. The book thus explores how the public contestation of knowledge staged by the mass media contributes to deepening democracy by re-instilling politics into science. Democratization of science under the agency of the scientific-citizen publics, the book suggests, is nonetheless limited as it fails to account for alternative forms of engagement offered by multiple publics. The book contends that the theory of deliberative democracy is inadequate to capture the multiplicity of public engagement with science.

Far from being a simple rhetoric discussion between two different approaches to the investigation of electric phenomena in living organisms, the Galvani-Volta controversy was a genuine scientific ...
More

Far from being a simple rhetoric discussion between two different approaches to the investigation of electric phenomena in living organisms, the Galvani-Volta controversy was a genuine scientific debate, largely based on new experimental evidence that anyone of the two discussants was providing in order to face the adversary's. After praising Galvani's research, Volta started to raise doubts about the existence of a form of electricity really intrinsic to the animal, and supposed that it derived instead from the metals used to connect nerve an muscle in frogs experiments. Galvani replied by providing a series of experiments demonstrating that muscle contractions were produced even in the absence of any metal, and also through a direct contact between the nerves of the frog preparations. On his side, however, Volta could demonstrate that the contact of two different metals could produce an electric effect, thus arriving to the invention of the electric battery.Less

The Controversy Between Galvani and Volta Over Animal Electricity : The Second STAGE

Marco PiccolinoMarco BresadolaNicholas Wade

Published in print: 2013-11-01

Far from being a simple rhetoric discussion between two different approaches to the investigation of electric phenomena in living organisms, the Galvani-Volta controversy was a genuine scientific debate, largely based on new experimental evidence that anyone of the two discussants was providing in order to face the adversary's. After praising Galvani's research, Volta started to raise doubts about the existence of a form of electricity really intrinsic to the animal, and supposed that it derived instead from the metals used to connect nerve an muscle in frogs experiments. Galvani replied by providing a series of experiments demonstrating that muscle contractions were produced even in the absence of any metal, and also through a direct contact between the nerves of the frog preparations. On his side, however, Volta could demonstrate that the contact of two different metals could produce an electric effect, thus arriving to the invention of the electric battery.

Inertia in science is a major hurdle, as the documentation of neurotoxicity builds only gradually. Scientific tradition demands verification and replication before reaching firm conclusions. Worse, ...
More

Inertia in science is a major hurdle, as the documentation of neurotoxicity builds only gradually. Scientific tradition demands verification and replication before reaching firm conclusions. Worse, vested interest have explored this inertia by demanding proof and by raising doubt about scientific documentation. Meanwhile, more than a generation of children have suffered chemical brain drain, while the evidence was debated and no decision reached. These adverse effects could have been prevented. However, in a contentious environment, where conflicting interests abound, scientists tend to hedge their conclusions in soft language in an attempt to justify a balanced position. Often, existing uncertainties are interpreted as a demand for more research, from which the researchers themselves may benefit, and preventive action is then postponed. The picture is muddled by unrecognized or unreported biases and by the influence of vested interests that have manipulated or manufactured doubt and uncertainty.Less

Inconvenient Truths

Philippe Grandjean

Published in print: 2013-05-07

Inertia in science is a major hurdle, as the documentation of neurotoxicity builds only gradually. Scientific tradition demands verification and replication before reaching firm conclusions. Worse, vested interest have explored this inertia by demanding proof and by raising doubt about scientific documentation. Meanwhile, more than a generation of children have suffered chemical brain drain, while the evidence was debated and no decision reached. These adverse effects could have been prevented. However, in a contentious environment, where conflicting interests abound, scientists tend to hedge their conclusions in soft language in an attempt to justify a balanced position. Often, existing uncertainties are interpreted as a demand for more research, from which the researchers themselves may benefit, and preventive action is then postponed. The picture is muddled by unrecognized or unreported biases and by the influence of vested interests that have manipulated or manufactured doubt and uncertainty.

Nuclear physics emerged as the dominant field in experimental and theoretical physics between 1919 and 1939, the two decades between the First and Second World Wars. Milestones were Ernest ...
More

Nuclear physics emerged as the dominant field in experimental and theoretical physics between 1919 and 1939, the two decades between the First and Second World Wars. Milestones were Ernest Rutherford’s discovery of artificial nuclear disintegration (1919), George Gamow’s and Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon’s simultaneous quantum-mechanical theory of alpha decay (1928), Harold Urey’s discovery of deuterium (the deuteron), James Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron, Carl Anderson’s discovery of the positron, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton’s invention of their eponymous linear accelerator, and Ernest Lawrence’s invention of the cyclotron (1931–2), Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie’s discovery and confirmation of artificial radioactivity (1934), Enrico Fermi’s theory of beta decay based on Wolfgang Pauli’s neutrino hypothesis and Fermi’s discovery of the efficacy of slow neutrons in nuclear reactions (1934), Niels Bohr’s theory of the compound nucleus and Gregory Breit and Eugene Wigner’s theory of nucleus+neutron resonances (1936), and Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch’s interpretation of nuclear fission, based on Gamow’s liquid-drop model of the nucleus (1938), which Frisch confirmed experimentally (1939). These achievements reflected the idiosyncratic personalities of the physicists who made them; they were shaped by the physical and intellectual environments of the countries and institutions in which they worked; and they were buffeted by the profound social and political upheavals after the Great War: the punitive postwar treaties, the runaway inflation in Germany and Austria, the Great Depression, and the greatest intellectual migration in history, which encompassed some of the most gifted experimental and theoretical nuclear physicists in the world.Less

The Age of Innocence : Nuclear Physics between the First and Second World Wars

Roger H. Stuewer

Published in print: 2018-07-26

Nuclear physics emerged as the dominant field in experimental and theoretical physics between 1919 and 1939, the two decades between the First and Second World Wars. Milestones were Ernest Rutherford’s discovery of artificial nuclear disintegration (1919), George Gamow’s and Ronald Gurney and Edward Condon’s simultaneous quantum-mechanical theory of alpha decay (1928), Harold Urey’s discovery of deuterium (the deuteron), James Chadwick’s discovery of the neutron, Carl Anderson’s discovery of the positron, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton’s invention of their eponymous linear accelerator, and Ernest Lawrence’s invention of the cyclotron (1931–2), Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie’s discovery and confirmation of artificial radioactivity (1934), Enrico Fermi’s theory of beta decay based on Wolfgang Pauli’s neutrino hypothesis and Fermi’s discovery of the efficacy of slow neutrons in nuclear reactions (1934), Niels Bohr’s theory of the compound nucleus and Gregory Breit and Eugene Wigner’s theory of nucleus+neutron resonances (1936), and Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch’s interpretation of nuclear fission, based on Gamow’s liquid-drop model of the nucleus (1938), which Frisch confirmed experimentally (1939). These achievements reflected the idiosyncratic personalities of the physicists who made them; they were shaped by the physical and intellectual environments of the countries and institutions in which they worked; and they were buffeted by the profound social and political upheavals after the Great War: the punitive postwar treaties, the runaway inflation in Germany and Austria, the Great Depression, and the greatest intellectual migration in history, which encompassed some of the most gifted experimental and theoretical nuclear physicists in the world.

This is the second book of a six volume edition of the complete correspondence of one of the leading figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, the Oxford mathematician and theologian ...
More

This is the second book of a six volume edition of the complete correspondence of one of the leading figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, the Oxford mathematician and theologian John Wallis (1616–1703). It covers the period 1660 to September 1668 and thus some of the most decisive years of political and scientific reorganization in England during that century. The volume begins shortly before the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and witnesses the emergence of the Royal Society from scientific circles, which had existed earlier in London and Oxford. Wallis's involvement in the Royal Society stretches back to its beginnings. After its official establishment, he became one of its most active members, corresponding regularly with its secretary Henry Oldenburg and attending meetings whenever he was in London. Wallis contributed extensively to contemporary scientific debate both in England and on the continent, and many of his letters to Oldenburg on mathematical and physical topics were edited and published in the journal Philosophical Transactions to this purpose. The correspondence contained in the volume, much of which is previously unpublished, throws new light on the background to the scientific revolution and on university politics during this time. As Keeper of the Archives, Wallis was often called upon to prepare papers aimed at defending the University of Oxford's ancient rights and privileges, and was also required to spend a considerable amount of his time in London. To this extent, at least his university commitments and scientific interests were able to go hand-in-hand.Less

The Correspondence of John Wallis (1616–1703) : Volume II (1660 – September 1668)

Philip BeeleyChristoph Scriba

Published in print: 2005-01-13

This is the second book of a six volume edition of the complete correspondence of one of the leading figures in the scientific revolution of the 17th century, the Oxford mathematician and theologian John Wallis (1616–1703). It covers the period 1660 to September 1668 and thus some of the most decisive years of political and scientific reorganization in England during that century. The volume begins shortly before the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 and witnesses the emergence of the Royal Society from scientific circles, which had existed earlier in London and Oxford. Wallis's involvement in the Royal Society stretches back to its beginnings. After its official establishment, he became one of its most active members, corresponding regularly with its secretary Henry Oldenburg and attending meetings whenever he was in London. Wallis contributed extensively to contemporary scientific debate both in England and on the continent, and many of his letters to Oldenburg on mathematical and physical topics were edited and published in the journal Philosophical Transactions to this purpose. The correspondence contained in the volume, much of which is previously unpublished, throws new light on the background to the scientific revolution and on university politics during this time. As Keeper of the Archives, Wallis was often called upon to prepare papers aimed at defending the University of Oxford's ancient rights and privileges, and was also required to spend a considerable amount of his time in London. To this extent, at least his university commitments and scientific interests were able to go hand-in-hand.

This book is the first of a six volume edition
of the complete correspondence of John Wallis (1616-1703). It begins with his
earliest known letters written shortly ...
More

This book is the first of a six volume edition
of the complete correspondence of John Wallis (1616-1703). It begins with his
earliest known letters written shortly before the outbreak of the first Civil War
while he was serving as a private chaplain, and ends on the eve of the restoration of
the monarchy in 1660, by which time he was already an established figure within the
Republic of Letters. The period covered is thus a momentous one in Wallis's life. It
witnesses his election to Savilian professor of geometry at the University of Oxford
in 1649 and his subsequent rise to become one of the leading mathematicians of his
day, particularly through his introduction of new arithmetical approaches to
Cavalieri's method of quadratures. The correspondence reflects the full breadth of
his professional activities in theology and mathematics, and provides insights not
only into religious debates taking place during the revolutionary years but also into
the various questions with which the mathematically-orientated scientific community
was concerned. Many of the previously unpublished letters also throw light on
University affairs. After his controversial election to the post of Keeper of the
Archives in 1658, Wallis fought vigorously to uphold the rights of the University of
Oxford whenever necessary, and to prevent as far as possible outside interference
from political and religious quarters.Less

The Correspondence of John Wallis (1616-1703), Volume I : (1641 - 1659)

Philip BeeleyChristoph J. Scriba

Published in print: 2003-07-24

This book is the first of a six volume edition
of the complete correspondence of John Wallis (1616-1703). It begins with his
earliest known letters written shortly before the outbreak of the first Civil War
while he was serving as a private chaplain, and ends on the eve of the restoration of
the monarchy in 1660, by which time he was already an established figure within the
Republic of Letters. The period covered is thus a momentous one in Wallis's life. It
witnesses his election to Savilian professor of geometry at the University of Oxford
in 1649 and his subsequent rise to become one of the leading mathematicians of his
day, particularly through his introduction of new arithmetical approaches to
Cavalieri's method of quadratures. The correspondence reflects the full breadth of
his professional activities in theology and mathematics, and provides insights not
only into religious debates taking place during the revolutionary years but also into
the various questions with which the mathematically-orientated scientific community
was concerned. Many of the previously unpublished letters also throw light on
University affairs. After his controversial election to the post of Keeper of the
Archives in 1658, Wallis fought vigorously to uphold the rights of the University of
Oxford whenever necessary, and to prevent as far as possible outside interference
from political and religious quarters.